tokfandomcom-20200215-history
Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a ( ) (until 2016, found at 10 US Code, Chapter 15, §§ 331–335, renumbered to 10 USC, Chapter 13, §§ 251–255) that governs the ability of the to deploy within the to put down , , and . The general purpose is to limit presidential power, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the , presidential powers for domestic law enforcement are limited and delayed. Relation to Posse Comitatus Act The entire text of the , as amended in 1956, is as follows: – Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus :Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.}} Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an "Act of Congress", have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. Amendments 2006 On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the ( as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order." The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill repeals the changes made in the . The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the and by unanimous consent in the . For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met: To proclaim a state of insurrection is a necessary prerequisite if cascading powers, such as is found in Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection, are to be used. Differences between old and new wording The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition and only if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order. By provisions in the amended act, Congress was granted the right to be informed immediately and every 14 days thereafter during the exercise of federal authority under these conditions. Comparison of differences Below is a comparison between the previous and current wording of – with new or revised sections and wording in bold and deleted wording in strikethrough. (with the exception of paragraph and formatting notation): Opposition On February 7, 2007, Sen. (D-VT) and Sen. (R-MO) introduced legislation that would revert the Insurrection Act to its previous state. Sen. Leahy argued that the modifications to the law make it unnecessarily easy to assert federal authority over national guard elements without the consent of governors, and that the changes removed a "useful friction" that existed between the Insurrection Act and the . Senator Leahy remarked on September 19, 2006 we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. It creates needless tension among the various levels of government — one can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders. No mention of Section 1076 was made in the President's statement about H.R. 5122. While this section was in effect, it allowed the President to declare a public emergency and station the military anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Criticism in 1997 of weakening the PCA (Posse Comitatus Act) and using the federal military for domestic conditions charged that it endangered the military and the United States: The PCA's exceptions-in-name and exceptions-in-fact endanger the military and the United States by blurring the traditional line between military and civilian roles, undermining civilian control of the military, damaging military readiness, and providing the wrong tool for the job. Besides the current drug interdiction exceptions, the 104th Congress considered two bills to create new exceptions to the PCA. The Border Integrity Act would have created an exception to allow direct military enforcement of immigration and customs laws in border areas. The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act would have allowed military involvement in investigations of chemical and biological weapons. ... Increasing direct military involvement in law enforcement through border policing—an exception-in-fact—is an easy case against which to argue. Investigative support—an exception-in-name—is passive, indirect enforcement. Drug interdiction—an exception-in-name for the most part—falls between border policing and investigative support because of the extensive military involvement. This case was also argued by the Departments of Justice and Defense in 1979: The PCA expresses one of the clearest political traditions in Anglo-American history: that using military power to enforce the civilian law is harmful to both civilian and military interests. The authors of the PCA drew upon a melancholy history of military rule for evidence that even the best intentioned use of the Armed Forces to govern the civil population may lead to unfortunate consequences. They knew, moreover, that military involvement in civilian affairs consumed resources needed for national defense and drew the Armed Forces into political and legal quarrels that could only harm their ability to defend the country. Accordingly, they intended that the Armed Forces be used in law enforcement only in those serious cases to which the ordinary processes of civilian law were incapable of responding. These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008. 2007 The amendments of 2006 were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (full text) SEC. 1068. References Category:Civilization